If he will make a statement on the availability of satellite television facilities on board Royal Navy ships. [41295]

While most Royal Navy ships enjoy a publicly funded capability to receive satellite television when alongside, only the carriers are also capable of receiving it at sea. In view of the beneficial effects on morale, I have directed that we should explore the possibility of making such facilities available on all royal naval ships at sea.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that, recently, I graduated from the armed forces parliamentary scheme; part of that process involved serving with HMS Newcastle. I was struck by the impact of satellite television on the morale of the men on HMS Newcastle, so I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comment today. Will he keep me, and the other people who are involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, informed of the detail of the negotiations, so that we can improve the morale of men and women serving on our ships? Many of them go to sea for six months or more and return to a very changed world. The lack of connection, day by day, to satellite television has a detrimental effect.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving his fellowship of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—a scheme that I thoroughly recommend to all hon. Members. Places are now open for next year.

I do not dispute in any sense the potential benefit to morale of satellite television, but would not morale on Her Majesty's ships be best encouraged by ensuring that those vessels have a full capability to fight and win? In that context, can the Minister tell us whether real progress has been made in getting the anti-air weapon system for the horizon 2000 common new generation frigates into service at the time expected and to specification?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe that it would be of tremendous value to morale on Her Majesty's ships and throughout the armed forces if we managed to remedy the dreadful shortfall in all three services that we were left by the previous Government. He can be assured that that is a top priority for me, and if we can get full manning on ships as well as satellite television, that would be a bonus. Discussions on the equipment for the horizon 2000 common new generation frigate project are continuing, and the hon. Gentleman can be sure that we shall proceed with them as speedily as is in our power.

Does my hon. Friend agree that morale was truly lifted with the change of Government? I believe that that has been the main boost to the armed forces.

I can give my shortest answer today: yes on both counts.

Are satellite television facilities available on board HMS Cornwall, and might an analysis of their use shed light on its role? Why has the Secretary of State not answered my question, tabled a week ago, about the role of HMS Cornwall? Was not the Prime Minister wrong to imply that, somehow, HMS Cornwall was responsible for the favourable outcome in Sierra Leone?

It is perhaps just as well that satellite television is not available, because if it were, I am sure that the crew would be more than upset by the aspersions that are sometimes cast on their activities—although not by my party. HMS Cornwall was deployed to Sierra Leone after the junta had been ousted to provide humanitarian assistance for the people, to support diplomatic efforts there, and to assist the return of the British high commissioner.

When the consultation period on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification ends. [41296]

The consultation period on our Green Paper on defence diversification ended on 8 May, and we are now considering the comments received.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Is he aware that the Green Paper has been widely welcomed by the business community in Hampshire, and especially by my constituents in Portsmouth? Lockheed Martin, which has substantial interests in the Astor and Merlin military programmes, is particularly interested in developments. What will the next stage of the process be? What can I tell my constituents about how the ideas in the Green Paper will evolve?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being an excellent spokesman for the defence industry and the armed forces in his area; and on the considerable period that he worked for the Ministry of Defence there. Like him, we have been pleased by the responses to the Green Paper; we are considering them at the moment, and consulting other Government Departments. We need to take into account the outcome of the strategic defence review, and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement on diversification before the summer recess.

If he will make a statement concerning the continuing role of the 3 battalion of the Staffordshire Regiment. [41297]

The third battalion of the Staffordshire Regiment is currently allocated to a national defence role. The future role of all arms and services within the Territorial Army will be decided as part of the strategic defence review. It is too early to say how individual units may be affected by the outcome of the review.

Although a number of people will realise that the strategic defence review is not yet completed, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the third battalion of the Staffordshire regiment, a Territorial Army battalion and regiment, is suffering from morale that is not as high as it ought to be? He will know that it is one of the few county regiments left in the country. Can he offer the battalion any encouragement by saying that it will not be disbanded or greatly reduced in size?

The Government want to make the future of the TA as valuable to this country as its past has been. We firmly believe that the way in which to do that is to make the TA relevant and usable, ready and available, and integrated with the other defence forces. Those principles will guide our approach to the Territorial Army, and to all the other services, regular and reserve.

As the possibility of a massive Russian land invasion of western Europe and the United Kingdom now seems remote, is it not only right that the strategic defence review should reconsider the role of the battalion mentioned by the hon.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and with her specific points. Those who seek to cast the Territorial Army in stone in the form in which it was created to face the threat during the cold war do it no service. That is the way in which to create a Territorial Army that is irrelevant to future threats. The Government seek to make the Territorial Army more usable, relevant and integrated, and to make sure that its future is as glorious as its past service to the country.

Does the Minister acknowledge that in the Territorial Army, there is a considerable crisis of morale, not least because of reports suggesting that its numbers may be reduced to as few as 40,000? In the light of the problems of recruitment and hence of undermanning, will the proposals in the strategic defence review take account of the contribution made by Territorial Army soldiers to operations such as Bosnia? Is the Minister aware, for example, that 11 soldiers of the Scottish Yeomanry are deploying on 27 May to the Light Dragoons in Bosnia in order to make up the numbers? Does not that emphasise the importance of the Territorials as a ready reserve to ensure that units conducting such operations are fully manned?

The hon. and learned Gentleman points out that the Territorial Army has been used to plug gaps in the Regular Army because of the deficiency in numbers there that we inherited. I am pleased to pay tribute to that. However, it would do no service to the Territorial Army to make its future success depend on the previous Government's failure to recruit to the Regular Army. We want to make sure that the Territorial Army is free standing, yet integrated. We believe that we can create a modern, relevant and usable Territorial Army. That will be a much better safeguard of its future than merely regarding it as being on the substitutes' bench for those who are not present in the Regular Army.

If he will list the Regular and Territorial units in the London District Rifle Association meeting in April by order of their team totals, starting with the winner. [41298]

I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the Regular and Territorial Army units in the London District Rifle Association meeting in April, by order of their team totals. I offer my congratulations to the London Regiment 5th, which carried the day with a team total of 3,637 points.

Can the Minister confirm that the three Territorial Army infantry battalions easily outshot their six regular counterparts? In the same week, an American National Guard armoured battalion easily defeated its regular counterparts in a tough trial in the Nevada desert. Is it not time that we recognised that the best and most cost-effective role for reservists is in combat?

I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. From memory, I think that four out of the first five teams were Territorial Army units, which proves what all of us know: that we have some extremely high-quality people in the Territorial Army. That is all the more reason to make sure that the role that we shape for those high-quality people is not one that died with the cold war, but one that is relevant and usable in future exercises and operations, and can meet any future threat that we may face.

What spare capacity there is within Army barracks. [41299]

An overall estimate of the spare capacity in Army barracks could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Where spare capacity exists, we seek to reduce it wherever possible.

In my experience, there is little spare capacity. Does the Minister therefore agree that the British Army of the Rhine is better left where it is?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the location of forces is considered in the strategic defence review. That is under consideration by the Cabinet, and the outcome will be announced in a White Paper in due course.

Does not the exchange on this question and earlier ones underline the need to complete the strategic defence review as soon as possible? The Secretary of State sent it off to his colleagues at the end of March. If it is not Treasury-driven, as we are repeatedly assured, what is holding up publication, and when shall we see it?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience, those matters are being considered fully in the round. The strategic defence review is foreign-policy-driven: it is not driven by incremental salami slicing, like the previous Government's so-called reviews. The matters are being considered properly. It is not the back-of-an-envelope stuff designed to justify cuts that we saw from the previous Government.

If he will make a statement on the current state of the defence medical services. [41300]

We are concerned about shortfalls in manpower and operational medical equipment, which were inherited from the previous Government. We are addressing that as a matter of urgency and will announce our proposals to remedy the situation as part of the strategic defence review.

Does the Secretary of State remember the Defence Committee report on defence medical services that outlined clearly how the services felt downgraded? The Committee found that services were deteriorating, that morale was very low—which we saw clearly for ourselves on an earlier visit to Bosnia—and that people were looking to the new Labour Government to do something about that. Will the Secretary of State give proper recognition to that report through the strategic defence review?

Yes, we will. My hon. Friend, who is not only a member of the current Defence Committee but a nurse, knows precisely the damage that can be done to morale in areas such as defence medical services. The report to which she referred, which was produced unanimously by a Tory-dominated Select Committee in the previous Parliament, states:

"We conclude that the staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover. It is possible that the military ethos of medicine in the regular armed forces has been destroyed. It seems incredible that the scaling down of the Defence Medical Services has been effected by MOD in such a manner as to allow a major and potentially critical staff shortage to develop."

I wish the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues every success in tackling the extremely difficult problem of maintaining properly trained staff in the defence medical services who are capable of dealing with battle casualties, as well as fulfilling their primary role of looking after the troops in peace time. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that health service trusts are prepared to release for military operations their highly trained and skilled nursing staff who are also members of the Territorial Army? Has he made representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to assess whether the system is working well?

I assure the hon. Gentleman, who had responsibility in this area under the previous Government, that that is precisely what we are doing. The defence medical services cannot survive or thrive without active co-operation from the national health service. We are not seeking to duplicate the national health service, but there are specific needs in the defence field that cannot be met by the NHS. Therefore, the exercise that we are conducting as a key priority of the strategic defence review will ascertain how best current health service resources can be mobilised in times of conflict to ensure that our fundamental obligation as a Ministry, a Government and a Parliament is to those whom we might send into the field. The risk to their health and life should be of paramount importance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of another reference to defence medical services in the Defence Committee report that he mentioned? The report said that defence medical services were in such a state that

"A choice would have to be made between sending troops without proper medical support or only sending the limited number of troops who could be supported."

I can do both. I am not content with simply condemning the previous Government—frankly, most of their members have been forgotten, although their legacy lingers on. They paid a heavy price for some of the calamitous decisions that they took, especially in areas such as defence medical services. We must get to grips with that problem because we shall be judged on it. I am determined that the Government will be judged as putting the priority of looking after battle casualties above practically every other priority in the defence field. I am confident that we shall be able to do that.

What progress has been made by British forces in detaining persons indicted for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia since 1 May 1997. [41302]

Since 1 May 1997, seven people indicted for war crimes have been detained in Bosnia by the stabilisation force. Six of these detentions took place in the British-commanded sector and involved British forces, either directly or in support. A further 15 indictees have surrendered voluntarily to the international criminal tribunal in The Hague.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the efforts of our forces in Bosnia? I am sure that that sentiment is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to continue to bring the guilty men to justice? Without justice, there is no chance of reconciliation and peace in Bosnia.

My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate those whose courage and dedication have led to the capture of those whom I have spoken about. The reality of the tragic country of Bosnia is that bringing those who have been indicted for war crimes to justice is not easy. The process is not simple and it involves huge risks, as the exercise at Prijedor last July amply proved. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there will not be a proper or lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia unless those who were responsible for the most heinous crimes in that part of the world in the past decade are eventually brought to The Hague to face justice.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that all relevant information gathered in this country over the past six years, including information from radio intercepts, will be made available as required to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and that nothing will be held back?

We co-operate fully with the international criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia at The Hague. We shall give it all the assistance that we can in future. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General visited The Hague earlier this month to open a new court room, which has been funded by the British Government.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the ultimate aim in Bosnia must be to establish stable institutions that are based on democracy and the rule of law? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the people who have committed such dreadful crimes against humanity are rounded up and brought properly to trial, and if found guilty, are sentenced? It should be a fundamental aim of the stabilisation force and its successor force to achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is precisely what we are doing. However, I underline the risks, problems and dangers that are involved. From a long way away—in circumstances that are a million miles from the sort of environment in which our troops operate—it is simple to say that we should bring the war criminals to justice. Within the mandate that has been laid down, British troops operating with the stabilisation force have done the dangerous job that the world community expects of them. I think that everyone recognises now that we are trying to fulfil that obligation.

If he will make a statement on the future of the Aldershot garrison. [41303]

The strategic defence review has examined all aspects of defence. No final decisions have been taken, and although I cannot speculate about the outcome, I can assure the hon. Member that there will continue to be a significant Army presence in Aldershot.

I am grateful to the Minister for part of that reply. As he is aware, the delay in bringing forth the strategic defence review is causing great concern in Aldershot, not just among military personnel, who do not know whether they will have to move—I hope that the Parachute Regiment will stay—but in the town, where there are deprivation problems. I hope that the Minister will complete the review as quickly as possible so that all the uncertainty can be limited. Can he assure me that, once the review is finished, Aldershot will still be able to claim to be the home of the British Army?

As regards the timing, it is better to get these matters right than to rush. At least some of the problems that we face are caused by the mess made in a number of areas by the Treasury-led reviews which were driven through under the previous Government.

We understand the Minister's embarrassment at being unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The House is getting pretty fed up with non-answers to questions. The Minister has been unable to answer more than half the questions on the Order Paper this afternoon and has referred instead to the outcome of the defence review. It simply is not good enough. It is affecting this country's entire military credibility, the defence export industries, and the health, economy, housing and local plans of Aldershot and many other garrison towns.

I am not in the least embarrassed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what the House is fed up with, he should know that it is fed up with the continual vacuous and banal statements by the Opposition. After 10 months' debate, which has involved all three services and ranged from the screws that we put on small battleships to the deployment of aircraft carriers and vast jets, and force planning assumptions, all that we have had from the Opposition is three debates on the Territorial Army because they think that there is cheap popularity in them. We would welcome a contribution from the Opposition.

What contribution his Department is making to the Government's new deal initiative. [41305]

What contribution his Department is making to the Government's new deal initiative. [41309]

My Department is committed to and is continuing to play a full part in contributing to the new deal. The armed forces are working closely with the new deal personal advisers and the further education colleges to identify, at the gateway stage, what self-development is required to make young people more confident and self-reliant. We are also committed to offering new deal opportunities whenever civilian recruitment campaigns are run.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. Will he point out the many opportunities available to our young people in the services and also give me, the House, young people and, more important, our armed forces, an assurance that every young person allocated a place in the scheme will be a volunteer and that no force whatever will be used? Will he oppose the suggestion in one of the Sunday papers that the scheme is a back-door way to national service?

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the armed forces are and will remain volunteer organisations. There is no question of utilising the new deal as a method of press-ganging people into the armed forces.

Will my right hon. Friend please say whether suppliers and contractors who support our armed forces and his Department have proposals to help with the new deal and to encourage young people to get into the broader side of the defence industry?

We always hope that Ministry of Defence suppliers will be among those involved in best practice in every field. We shall encourage those in the defence industry to participate in what is an enriching experience, not only for young people, but for companies and for the country. Many people forget that the defence industry employs 440,000 people at the cutting edge of technology and of success for the nation. Companies that are so successful should clearly recognise the benefits of getting young people through their doors by way of the new deal.

May I press on the Secretary of State the fact that the armed forces would be able to take part in the new deal initiative with a great deal more certainty if they had the results of the strategic defence review to hand? The Ministry of Defence's proposals on, for example, elements such as the Royal Armoured Corps are an open secret among its members, as is virtually the rest of the package that has gone forward to the Government. As the Treasury was involved in the teams that were assessing the MOD's strategic defence review inside the MOD when it was going on, what is the delay? Members of the armed forces have every reason to suspect that the package will be unpicked by the Treasury. He will understand that, if it is unpicked in one degree, the whole package will begin to fall apart.

The hon. Gentleman was inside the MOD acting as an adviser to Ministers and, by gosh, saw precisely what was happening in there. There were not Treasury people inside the MOD; there were MOD people inside the Treasury and they were being told how much to cut. We are carrying out a policy-led review based on the strategic interests of this country. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks he has seen in the leaks, I can assure him that he has not seen the definitive outcome of the report. When he does, he will see something that is radical and sensible and designed to do what the Conservative Government never had the courage or guts to do: look at the future, not the past, and reconfigure our forces radically. When the Government are ready to announce the report, it and the White Paper will be issued.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the armed forces is the defence of the realm, and that they have been doing a good job of that in the recent past? While we all wish the recruiting initiative through new deal well, will he ensure that standards are maintained so that the armed forces do not suffer as a result of having to take poor quality recruits to make the new deal successful? Did he see the report in yesterday's newspapers that the paras, for one, are dropping their standards so that they can up their recruiting figures, the result of which is a reduction in effectiveness?

I saw the report and I thought that it was utter nonsense. It was an insult to the fine people in that regiment, who do not deserve such glib anecdotes being thrown at them. Even if it were true, it could hardly reflect the experience of simply one 12-month period. The attack, if that is what it was, is not just on the Government but on the previous Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not think that such an accusation would stick on the Government or on the Opposition. The professionalism of the armed forces will be maintained, although we may find other ways to get there.

"the reality is quite different. The British Army remains the single most universally admired of all British institutions. It possesses a worldwide reputation for discipline and professionalism. From the Falklands War to their peacekeeping role in Bosnia, our armed services have acquitted themselves with distinction."

New deal or not, does it help young men to join the armed forces when they reflect on how Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright have been treated?

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces met representatives of the campaign for the two guardsmen whom my hon. Friend mentions and has mentioned in the past. The matter is not for the Ministry of Defence; the decision is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that she is well aware of the sentiments in the country, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will apprise her of his meeting last week. It is for her to make the decision within the long-established framework.

Before the Secretary of State gets too carried away with the overblown hoo-hah of his own rhetoric, will he reflect on the fact that the person who criticised the falling standards for recruitment to the Parachute Regiment was the head of the regiment's recruiting team? As newspaper articles have been quoted, let us see how the Secretary of State responds to what that man said. He said:

"nearly half the soldiers now accepted into the Parachute Regiment, which prides itself on fitness, would have been failed five years ago.

"The Army, facing a shortage of 5,000 recruits, was letting people slip through the net 'just to make up the numbers'".

No, and I do not accept what he says. It is not borne out by the facts and it is an insult to those who serve in the regiment. I repeat that, even if it were true, the change could not simply have taken place over the past 12 months. Neither the previous Government, and certainly not this one, would lower the standards for those who are expected to serve and fight in Her Majesty's armed forces. Professionalism will be maintained, and that is recognised wherever our soldiers, sailors and air men and women are in the field of conflict. I have seen them in Bosnia, on HMS Invincible and on RAF stations in this country and abroad. Those people are among the finest and fittest in armed forces in any part of the world, and that standard will be maintained.

What plans he has for the modernisation of the Territorial Army. [41308]

The strategic defence review has examined all aspects of our armed forces, including the Territorial Army. Although no final decisions have been taken, I assure the House that we will continue to need a Territorial Army that is structured for all the roles that we can plausibly foresee. Our aim is a Territorial Army that is relevant and capable, ready to serve Britain and able to meet the tasks that we set it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for the strategic review, because what was wanted was a careful, not rushed, appraisal of this country's real needs into the next century and that is what the Government are doing? Does he further agree that the way in which the Territorial Army will survive is by being modernised for that new role? It is not a pre-cold war or cold war situation, but a new situation, with the British Army and British armed forces taking on a different strategic role. Does he also agree that part of that role involves the training of competent young men and women?

Yes. We said that the strategic defence review would be foreign-policy-led, and it has been. We said that the service chiefs would be involved from day one and they have been. We said that every element of our forces would be subjected to scrutiny in the light of the new security context and they have been—every element, every force, regular and reserve, has been subjected to scrutiny. When the subject of the Territorial Army comes up, we should remember that it is the only section of the Army that has the freedom to express its views publicly and to lobby publicly. Although that does not in any way diminish our respect for it, we should remember that exactly the same level of scrutiny has been applied to the regular Army, to the Navy and to the Air Force. The purpose behind that scrutiny is to ensure that all services, regular and reserve, are usable, relevant and modern in the context of our security analysis.

Following the logic of the answer to the question on the modernisation of the Territorial Army, and the logic of the answers to other questions, I find that Ministers have placed great emphasis on the fact that this is a foreign-policy-led defence review. Will the Minister now finally publish what that foreign policy baseline is, or perhaps it has been lost, like so many other things to do with the Foreign Office?

The only thing that has been lost is the establishment figure for the armed forces, which occurred under the previous Government: between 5,500 and 7,500 soldiers in the Army were lost. That has been the inheritance of this Government. Our task is to turn that around, to stop the increase in the shortfall and to begin to get the Army, in particular, back to the level that it should have been for many years. On the foreign-policy baseline, the hon. Gentleman knows that that has been outlined time and again, not least by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in speeches, interviews and articles.

How many British troops are currently stationed in Bosnia as part of NATO's multinational stabilisation force. [41310]

Some 5,200 UK troops are currently serving in former Yugoslavia as part of the NATO-led stabilisation force. Around 3,700 are based in Bosnia, with a further 1,500 serving in Croatia. Those figures exclude routine short-term fluctuations in numbers as units arrive and depart from theatre.

I thank the Secretary of State for that information. Does he agree that it is vital that we retain our troops in Bosnia for a period beyond the middle of this year, so that we do not return to the sort of bloodshed that pre-dated the Dayton peace agreement?

Yes. The UK intends to continue to play its part in any NATO-led force after the expiry of the existing SFOR mandate in 1998. However, we must expect and hope that Bosnia and the Bosnians will take a greater role in determining their future. We do not want a dependency culture to be created on the back of international troops in that area. There have been some failures throughout this period, but NATO has had some enormous successes as well, both in stopping the fighting and creating the conditions for peace and in ensuring that civic institutions with a sustainable future are, out of the ashes, beginning to be created.

Could the Secretary of State give some indication of the number of Territorials serving in Bosnia? If the Territorials, such as the five Leicestershire units that may be under threat, are cut, will he not have fewer reserves to draw on, when there is increasing crisis in the Army? Is that not a germane reason for thinking carefully about this proposed cut in Territorials?

Over 2,000 Territorial Army personnel and other reserves have served in Bosnia. At times, about 10 per cent. of troops in that area are from our reserves. I pay strong tribute to what they have done.

If he will make a statement on Britain's current military heavy lift capability. [41311]

Our strategic lift requirement, in terms both of airlift and sealift, has been scrutinised closely in the strategic defence review. Of course, that scrutiny has been informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that there has been inadequate investment in heavy lift capability in the past and that there is therefore a need for early investment? Although RAF Stafford does not have a runway, would not such an investment lead to an all-round improvement in what is already an excellent logistical support service by the RAF?

My hon. Friend is right to say that past investment has been inadequate. Investment is now more important than ever because we live in an even more volatile and less predictable world, where power projection and our ability to react quickly and reach throughout the world are more important than ever. In short, we can no longer expect—as we could during the cold war in central Germany—the crisis to come to us. More and more often, we have to go to the crisis. Therefore, there is an even greater premium on the capacity to lift our forces and the weaponry that they need, whether by sea or by air.

If she will set up a Select Committee to consider Her Majesty's Government's response to the publication of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources red list on threatened plants compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. [41329]

I believe that this subject could come within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and also, possibly, the Environmental Audit Committee. I see no need for a separate Committee on the issue.

Is there not at least a respectable case for a Select Committee, as at least six Departments are involved in the response to the red list? Apart from anything we may say about these botanical treasure houses becoming extinct, will my right hon. Friend comment on the study, which I have drawn to the Department's attention, by Meilleur and Phillips, which cites a figure of £9 billion, even on a commercial basis? Is there not a case for a co-ordinated response by Government, and quickly?

My hon. Friend did draw my attention to that research. It is important that we should safeguard plant species threatened by extinction, and the United Kingdom fully contributes to its financial obligations under a number of international agreements that promote co-operation in safeguarding plants at risk of extinction. Steps have been taken to ensure that there is co-operation between Departments and that we are fully supportive of their efforts.

I warmly endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is the right hon. Lady aware that Kew and Wakehurst place—which have outstanding assets and a quality of expertise of worldwide fame—are in an exceptionally good position to play a fundamental role in the co-ordination of Government policy? The hon. Gentleman made a key point—there are too many Departments involved in trying to pull together a very disparate subject.

I agree that there is a great deal of expertise in this country, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism and his comment about the need for further co-operation. Steps have already been taken to ensure that there is co-operation between Departments. Ministers and officials want to work with the experts to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

What plans she has to extend the Select Committee system. [41332]

It is less than a year since the Select Committee system was last extended. I therefore have no immediate plans to make further changes.

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the Select Committee system is at the very heart of our traditional role of checking the Executive. Will she encourage recently mooted developments in which Select Committees assess and give marks—even out of 10—for departmental performance? Will she also give counsel to some Select Committees—who would perhaps be better off studying some of the newer management techniques to improve their performance, rather than thinking that they had to travel around the world to discover such techniques?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Select Committees' role is a very important one. I am sure that new and experienced hon. Members alike will agree with that statement and think that the work that they do on Select Committees is extremely important. As for suggesting to Select Committees the precise inquiries that they should undertake, or whether and how they should assess departmental performance, I know that Select Committees guard their freedoms and individual rights very jealously. They might not welcome advice from myself or from others on how they should conduct themselves.

I am certainly in favour of using the Select Committee system in the most effective way possible. However, does the right hon. Lady not agree that, in her Government's increasingly farcical handling of the arms to Sierra Leone affair, it was hardly a contribution to the effectiveness of Select Committees that, last week, during Business Questions, she should have referred to correspondence directed to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the House had not seen, but which—I need hardly add with this Government—the BBC had?

I made it clear that the letter was addressed to the Chairman of the Select Committee. As I had been asked by Opposition Members for the latest information on the issue, I thought it incumbent upon me to give them the latest information.

If she will facilitate contacts between hon. Members and Members of the Parliaments of other EU nation states. [41333]

There are already opportunities for contacts between hon. Members of this House and those in other European countries. I would be content to consider any positive proposal that my hon. Friend may have on how we could constructively extend those opportunities.

I am grateful for that encouraging answer, especially now that we have drained much of the anti-European poison of the past few years. However, it is essential, is it not, that national parliaments play a role in the construction of Europe? Whereas hon. Members may visit any European institution once a year on the vote—paid for by the House—they cannot visit any national parliament in Europe. As only about 10 per cent. of that facility is taken up, there is a fair bit of dosh in my right hon. Friend's coffers that could be used to encourage, not political tourism, but proper contact between all hon. Members and their opposite numbers in other national parliaments, to build a stronger Britain in a coherent Europe.

I must disabuse my hon. Friend of one point: there is no dosh in my coffers because of hon. Members not travelling in the way that he suggested. It is possible for hon. Members to travel to European institutions. Visits by Committees and by individual Members on specific duties are also possible. Many hon. Members do not use existing facilities to travel to Brussels or to Strasbourg to familiarise themselves with European Union events, and I think that more hon. Members could benefit from undertaking such journeys and participating in such meetings. Although visiting other national parliaments is an interesting suggestion, we would have to consider the purpose of such visits, to ensure that they were not open to abuse.

Is not that question a reflection of the fact that this Parliament continues to be sidelined by the Government? Is it not the fact that, since the general election, the Prime Minister has turned up for only seven votes? Is not most administration of the United Kingdom now performed in Whitehall and not in Parliament? Is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) would rather spend his time in other parliaments because he knows how worthless this place has become since the general election?

No.

Mr. Austin Mitchell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Mrs. Teresa Gorman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] Mr. Ian Bruce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] This is a disgrace. I hope that it will be noted and that I shall have letters of apology from all of them. We shall return to defence questions.

What plans he has to increase the strength of the Army Cadet Force. [41312]

Ever present, Madam Speaker.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that scattered across Surrey, Sussex and Kent are some 20 Territorial Army centres. Does he agree that any reduction in the strength of the TA could lead to a severe reduction in the number of TA centres? If so, how will he sustain, let alone improve, the quality and numbers of the cadet forces if the TA centres close?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out the valuable assistance that the TA gives the armed forces cadets and the Army cadets in particular. It is one of the reasons that we will study the footprint of the TA extremely carefully to take into account geographical and other factors, including the Army cadets themselves. I have made plain our commitment to the Army cadets. I believe that they contribute greatly to our society by giving young men and women character-building opportunities and the chance to develop initiative and leadership. If that were not sufficient, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the personal interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who was in his day a cadet of some distinction and who is fully behind the protection of the cadets in the defence review.